If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That's looking pretty darned good so far Storm. Here are a few constructive points as I see: The top C-shaped "sash" should be a tiny bit thicker, and a wee bit more squared off. Also it has two holes through the front (and I assume) rear faces. The center "spine" should be thinner, and not tube shaped. Just some observations. Darned fine work bro!

Unfortunately I cant show the photo, but the center is definitally a tube in the front, not sure about the rear. I was shown a high res photo that showed the tube running up the center. Which also makes me believe tht this is some sort of a mount, with a screw down the center on one side, mounted to a metal mount like in the photos above.

Im sure youve all seen them, they attach to rods, and have a screw that goes downn the cetner and 'bites' into whatever its attached too.

Im wondering if theres some photography equipment used to hold the heiland tubes or something, that looks like this.

The top sash is what the mounts 'clip' to, so the thickness is determined by the scope mounts. If the scope mounts were further apart, the sash would be thicker. Does that make sense?

I cant say the scopes that everyone says are 'acurate' arent acurate, but im sure the modern mounts are not quite acurate. But your correct. And the holes do need to be drilled. I dont think these are more than 70% acurate really. But for molding purposes (simplicity) and rough acuracy, i think they are getting close.

So, lets see if we can all agree to elminate some ideas, insrtead of agreeing on some.

First, lets talk about the front mount. This is of a copy of arts posted pic.

Can we agree on the following:

1 The mount is not an A, at least in the sense were all used to. In the following picture I have drawn in the 'readily accepted' shape of the mount. Looking at the lines of this pic. can we agree this is not the correct shape?

2 The angle of the molex in the front MATCHES the angle of the base of the mount, but not the angle of the upper part of the mount (Thats going into the scope area) therefore further eliminating the 'A' frame idea.

3. The UPPER portion of the mount, does not smoothly transition into the lower 'clamp part' of the mount, further moving away from the accepted (even the mounts I made) shape of the mounts.

Your "A" is much too tall.
The sides should match the angle of the Molex and it should end just above the Molex.
There's a block missing that goes on top of the A.
See the pic shabad posted from Saxe Coburg.
The "A" is blue, you're missing the orange part on top (under the purple).

The back mount is about 1/4 to 1/2 inch higher up. due to the barrell change in size.

The mounts are both roughly the same size at the top. Which means ones a squatty A and ones a tall A. The talls in the front.

The 'shroud' looks like it acts as a rail for the scope mount. Theres a screw that stops the 'shroud' from being on top of the rail. Theres not room. Which means it IS the rail.

The rail, has enough room for the scope bracket to pinch under it, But its not raised up on a giant block like in the diagrams.

Now, regardless, two things catch my eye on arts picture.

Theres a diaganol line, and no horizontal line, leaving the top of the molex. Heading towards the top of the mount. And at the bottom of the molex, you see another angled piec cutting in towards the clamp.

The arrows aren't mine, sorry about that, it was from your scope mount thread and referred to the holes - I used it as just a clearer picture of the same that Art posted.

I'd need to reboot into Linux to use gimp to illustrate what I mean. Knowing you have access to the higher resolution pictures sort of makes it all academic, it's silly for me to try and see different details in low resolution pictures Let us know what you discover, I'm keenly interested in seeing this part examined!

I ignored the mount block in this and was mainly looking at the A, and it's relationship to the scope clamp and molex. The mount block (with the holes) looks to be a angled block on top of the A that the scope clamps to.

This is not acurate dimension wise, but a breakdown of the rough shapes and the way they go together. I think the angles on the sides of the top of the clamp are incorrect here, but i havent got any real way to get any source. But this is roughly how all the pictures come together.

I think the lower part of the top piece, is more vertical, and the upper part more horizontal.

Some indicate the center brace, is a tube, not a block. Because they all have a gradient to them. Gradients tend to indicate tubes. Unless its a coincidence, but almost every pic shows the center piece as a gradient.

That piece is in my avi. Its just not as tall,. but actually the colored pic above, its not colored to scale. The block is not that visible from the side. On either mount.

Look at the uncolored version of the pic above and youll see the line of the front mount dissapears under the mount side bracket. You cant see the block. What you see is actually the undercut of the mount brackets.

And the mount does have two side angles to a flat top (Well we dont know its flat cause it disapears under the shroud.)

If you want to argue that, maybe go ahead and illustrate over the same picture that shabad did. Because im just not sure what your seeing or where, that Im not.

With regard to the pipe clamp mount, you guys are very close to an old style pipe hanger. The top of the A-frame held a bolt or could be threaded into a longer anchor rod. I have some in the machine shed on my farm, and unfortunately it is 2500 miles from my present location. They look a lot like what Stormrider posted, but were cast metal.